Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[Wickerman]

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"Once the story leaked to the Star (and it probably was from someone at Leman St.) CID (at Leman ST.) had no choice but to downplay Schwartz publicly"

Can't say I entirely disagree. And, of course, "The Star" may have misunderstood. All I'm saying is that their story--like Swanson's report--is out there.

Cheers.
LC

We do have examples of the police intentionally providing the press with contrary information. This may be just another example.

Because a story 'may' have originated at Leman/Commercial St. does not mean the story is an official view. It may reflect the contempt some officers had for the press in general or one reporter in particular.

[Wickerman]

I see a [potential] police blunder, perhaps corrected later when Lawende, not Schwartz became the eyewitness the police reportedly used on two occasions to identify the Ripper (Salder in 1i891 and Grant in 1895--arguably the origin of Anderson's mistake about a Jewish witness affirming to a Jewishs suspect).

Sadler is an interesting example.
Sadler also did not appear in court in person (like Schwartz), but his statement was read aloud by the Prosecutor Charles Mathews.

So the none appearance of a witness is not the main concern, more to the point is, why was the statement given by Schwartz not read to the court?

[DRoy]

I see a [potential] police blunder, perhaps corrected later when Lawende, not Schwartz became the eyewitness the police reportedly used on two occasions to identify the Ripper (Salder in 1i891 and Grant in 1895--arguably the origin of Anderson's mistake about a Jewish witness affirming to a Jewishs suspect).

Jonathan H,

What would be the police blunder? You seem to still put the newspaper version as more likely but why is that?

As i've said many times over many posts, I agree that Schwartz's statement eventually lost clout for some reason (Cris has put together a great and plausible theory to discount my position) but I still am not convinced why it was. Most now believe Schwartz to be a valuable witness.

I'm glad Moonbegger asked the question, but I think in very few posts it has been answered and shown that the police version is still the most likely regardless whether Schwartz was mistaken/lying/misinterpreted.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

"Israel Schwartz is--arguably--a minor sideshow to the main game."

Now you're talking, mate.

I'm curious Lynn why you feel that way? You'd think I'd know after years of reading your posts but I somehow missed your theory.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

So the none appearance of a witness is not the main concern, more to the point is, why was the statement given by Schwartz not read to the court?

Jon,

Interesting isn't it that after giving his newspaper statement he completely vanishes? He gave an interview to one paper and *poof* he's gone. I'd assume the police would have put a gag order on him after the newspaper interview, hence he isn't interviewed or brought up again by the papers.

I personally don't interpret anything in his statement other than the descriptions of Pipeman and BSM as being such importance to not read his statement or have him testify. We know the descriptions weren't secret anyway.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

What Brits say and what they mean.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Because a story 'may' have originated at Leman/Commercial St. does not mean the story is an official view. It may reflect the contempt some officers had for the press in general or one reporter in particular."

Entirely possible.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

forensics

Hello Roy. Thanks.

"I'm curious Lynn why you feel that way? You'd think I'd know after years of reading your posts but I somehow missed your theory."

Simply put, the forensics of his story do not match her body position. That is why his defenders oft times theorise a second attack after Schwartz and BSM leave.

I find a second attack implausible.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Lynn,

Thanks for sharing your view. However I'm still confused.

Are you saying you don't believe in Schwartz's statement nor do you believe that there was an attack after the Schwartz 'incident' you don't believe happened in the first place?

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Interesting isn't it that after giving his newspaper statement he completely vanishes? He gave an interview to one paper and *poof* he's gone.

Yes, the spanner in the works is the date of Swanson's report suggesting that police still had faith in Schwartz almost three weeks after the murder.

I'd assume the police would have put a gag order on him after the newspaper interview, hence he isn't interviewed or brought up again by the papers.

Any 'gag' order would have been placed on him the instant he gave the police his version, not after a press interview

It is also possible that there was no press interview with Schwartz. The reporter worded his article in such a way as to almost admit that their source was the interpreter not Schwartz directly.

[RivkahChaya]

On another thread someone (Debra perhaps) pointed out that, in the Hungarian language, the words meaning "pipe" and "dagger" (not "knife") sound very similar.

https://translate.google.co.uk/#en/hu/pipe

https://translate.google.co.uk/#en/hu/dagger

The sounds can be compared on the two links - not identical, but perhaps sufficiently similar to have been misheard by a translator.

Do we know for certain he was speaking Hungarian? I assumed he would be speaking Yiddish.

John,

Through any translation the word 'pipe' or 'lighting' could have been confused... but how does a translator get both those wrong and yet manage for those two things to be related to each other? The odds are not very good.

If he said something like "the knife caught the light," and the translator didn't recognize the word for knife (if he used a regionalism, or something), the translator could have pulled out of his ass a thing that went with "light," like "pipe." I don't know if that works in Hungarian, but it does in Yiddish.

Thanks Colin,

That still leaves a problem with 'lighting' it though. Not sure what word sounds similar to that and would make sense in the context of a dagger but like I said I would assume it would be quite rare.

Cheers
DRoy

Been looking for Yiddishisms, and admittedly, I see none in the newspaper report, though I agree that the reporter changed it pretty significantly. In the other, I found only this:

but the man did not follow so far

in the US we'd tend to say "that far," or "as far," but "so far" is definitely what a native Yiddish speaker would say.

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello Jonathan , Two things that spring to mind here ! firstly , looking at both reports , are they really that contradictory ? I think the only major discrepancy lies with the "Pipe/knife" malarkey , and as we have heard from earlier posts , it could well be just a Translation issue , ( Dagger , knife , pipe , ect ) . . . .

cheers

moonbegger .

Moonbegger, I agree with your assessment. By combining the two statements, we get a pretty clear picture of what Schwartz observed. That higher ups in the department may have favored the police statement (which we haven't seen) over a press account doesn't bother me. What does is the fact that Schwartz was never called to testify at Stride's inquest - despite being an eyewitness to a man physically assaulting a woman at the exact location where a woman was found murdered only minutes later. Many witnesses who testified at the various inquests had far less pertinent stories to tell, yet Schwartz seemingly was ignored. Why? Unquestionably, he should have been a key witness, but apparently he was allowed to simply fade away. This is especially surprising since police took Schwartz's statement quite seriously - his mention of someone hollering "Lipsky" is later referred to in police memos and reports of Insp. Abberline, for instance.

The section on Israel Schwartz in "A-Z" covers the matter beautifully. Here's a portion of what that excellent source has to say about Schwartz: "The most puzzling feature . . . is that there is no report in the press of his being called to testify at Stride's inquest, and no report of any closed session when he might have testified in camera . . . Schwartz's evidence was in the highest degree material. It would be a serious offence for the police to withhold an important witness from the coroner . . . ." The authors offer no explanation for this but do suggest the possibility that perhaps Schwartz did provide testimony (later suppressed?) and that when Robert Anderson referred in a memo to, " . . . the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . . ." he meant it and was not simply misremembering.

Dr. John

[RivkahChaya]

The section on Israel Schwartz in "A-Z" covers the matter beautifully. Here's a portion of what that excellent source has to say about Schwartz: "The most puzzling feature . . . is that there is no report in the press of his being called to testify at Stride's inquest, and no report of any closed session when he might have testified in camera . . . Schwartz's evidence was in the highest degree material. It would be a serious offence for the police to withhold an important witness from the coroner . . . ." The authors offer no explanation for this but do suggest the possibility that perhaps Schwartz did provide testimony (later suppressed?) and that when Robert Anderson referred in a memo to, " . . . the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . . ." he meant it and was not simply misremembering.

Dr. John

What did testifying "in camera" mean then?

[DRoy]

By combining the two statements, we get a pretty clear picture of what Schwartz observed. That higher ups in the department may have favored the police statement (which we haven't seen) over a press account doesn't bother me.

DR. JW,

The actual statement doesn't exist but Swanson's summary does. There weren't too many 'higher ups' than him. Being policemen surely they would trust their version over those in the papers.

Putting the two statements together really doesn't make a clear picture at all. There are obvious differences between the two and I would say they are very important differences.

...do suggest the possibility that perhaps Schwartz did provide testimony (later suppressed?) and that when Robert Anderson referred in a memo to, " . . . the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . . ." he meant it and was not simply misremembering.

Sure, that's a good theory. Cris also wrote that great article about Schwartz which is quite convincing. While most believe Schwartz, I'm still not convinced. In my opinion it is like a chain letter, once one incorrect report was written and gave faulty information, everyone followed it and kept the legend alive by relying on the same said information. An opinion only.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Roy. Thanks.

IF the story is true (which I doubt), then BSM killed Liz. But the story AS TOLD does not correspond with the position of the body.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

debated

Hello Rivkah.

"Do we know for certain he was speaking Hungarian? I assumed he would be speaking Yiddish."

This is much debated. Jury still out.

Cheers.
LC